Appeal 6007046

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages. The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted 1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly. As the scheme relates to the setting of a listed building, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular reference to: • The character and appearance of the surrounding area; • Whether the proposal would preserve a [name]* listed building or its setting, known as the Church of St. Andrew and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and • Flooding with particular reference to groundwater conditions and surface water management. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

Minting is a small rural settlement with linear housing spread along both [address] and [address]. The presence of fields is a prominent feature within the village and through gaps between buildings allowing views of the wider agricultural land. These, along with other features, including hedgerows and farm buildings, contribute strongly to the rural qualities of the village.

The appeal site forms part of a field bordering both [address] and [address]. There is a distinct difference between the pattern of development on the eastern side of [address] and the western side where the appeal site is located. The eastern side is characterised by low density linear housing. Whereas the western side is far less developed and has a much greater sense of openness and an overtly rural quality.

The appeal site’s open undeveloped rural qualities are experienced from both [address] but also from the public right of way passing through the site which links with [address]. In this regard, although the appeal site is a modest part of the larger open field it makes a significant contribution to the rural qualities of the village and is an important element in the street scene.

The location, and land use of even the modest amount of development proposed would significantly erode the verdant character and natural beauty associated with the appeal site both when experienced from [address] and the public right of way. The proposed land use in this location would fail to harmonise with and detract from the prevailing character and rural qualities on this side of the street. Accordingly, the harm resulting from the development could not be overcome through design details at the TDC stage.

I therefore find that the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy SP25 of the Council’s Local Plan and paragraphs 135 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that in the case of sites not identified on the [name], development will only be permitted on open spaces provided unacceptable harm will not be caused to their appearance, character or role in providing an important element in the street scene or a well-defined visual relief in an otherwise built up frontage. Church of St. Andrew

The Grade II* listed Church of [name] (the Church) is a modest sized church constructed predominantly with squared rubble and a slate roof with a 12th century core and later alterations. In so far as it relates to this appeal, its historical use as a religious site dating from the 12th century, its nave and western bellcote, size, surviving historic fabric and external ecclesiastical architectural character, all contribute to its special historical and architectural interest and significance.

The Church is set back from [address] within its grounds and due to its low height, and numerous mature trees it is discreetly positioned and is not prominent within the wider village and rural landscape. Instead, it is within close proximity, on the approach to the Church from the west along [address], and from within its grounds, that the significance of the Church, as a building of considerable social and cultural importance to the local community, is experienced.

The Church’s position, with maturing trees in and beyond its grounds, and with open undeveloped land to the south and east, results in a rural tranquil setting. The public footpath passing through the appeal site runs past the Church grounds and provides a functional connection to the Church from [address]. However, due to the location, depth and height of the natural screening the Church building is not prominent from the footpath at the appeal site. Due to the location in the south eastern corner of the field and the resulting intervening distance, along with the depth and height of vegetation, I find that the appeal site contributes little if anything to the setting and thus the significance of the listed building.

The introduction of up to two dwellings in this location would maintain a sizeable separation to the listed building such that it would still allow the Church to be experienced within its peaceful rural setting. In this regard, and due to the restricted views from the trees in between, and the retention of the public right of way I am satisfied that the amount of residential development in this location would preserve the contribution that the Church’s setting makes to its significance.

I therefore find that the location, land use and the amount of development proposed would preserve the [name]* listed building and its setting, known as the Church of St. Andrew and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. It would therefore satisfy the requirements of the Act, and the provisions within the Framework, in so far as they relate to this matter. These seek, amongst other things, to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also be in accordance with Policies SP11 and SP25 of the Local Plan, when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that proposals will be supported where they preserve or enhance heritage assets and their setting.

The evidence before me from national records indicates that the appeal site has a very low chance of flooding and that it lies outside of a ground water flood alert area. However, the Council regard it to be a location sensitive for drainage relating to groundwater conditions and surface water management. Third party representations also suggest that the existing surface water drainage running along [address] is at maximum capacity during heavy rain fall.

However, I do not have substantive evidence that this is the case or from the Council as to what these sensitivities, in relation to the appeal site, entail and thus how they would likely go to the principle of the location, use and amount of development. Moreover, I am mindful that given that this is a permission in principle application, the site will not benefit from planning permission until such time as the TDC has been granted. In this regard, whilst acknowledging the concerns expressed regarding this matter, the Council still has the power to refuse any subsequent TDC consent if an appropriate drainage strategy is not submitted.

As such, I can not conclude that the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular regards to flooding with particular reference to groundwater conditions and surface water management. Therefore, the proposal for permission in principle would not be in conflict with Policy SP16 of the Local Plan, which says, amongst other things, that surface water connections to the combined or surface water system should only be made in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternatives and where there is no detriment to existing users.

The appeal site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This would bring conflict with Policy SP25 of the Council’s Local Plan and the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. Although a modest sized development, given the contribution that the rural qualities of the appeal site make to the character and appearance of the area, and the sensitivity of the site due to the public right of way passing through it, I give the harm significant weight.

The Council does not have a 5-year supply of housing land and paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. This states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would provide social benefits boosting the supply of housing within the village. Moreover, any future occupiers would bolster the demand for nearby services and facilities. There would be economic benefits too from the spending of future occupiers in the local area, as well as from the construction works. This would stimulate employment, and the commissioning of services. The amount of development would be commensurate with the size and role of the settlement. In this regard, the proposal would support the objectives of the Framework of significantly boosting the supply of homes, boosting the economy by directing development to sustainable locations. The absence of harm in relation to other considerations weigh neither for nor against in my assessment.

Whilst there would be benefits at a level commensurate with the amount of development, the proposal would not secure well-designed places and indeed would result in significant harm locally to the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, the adverse impacts of the amount of residential development in this location would be overriding, and significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole having particular regard to the key policies identified. Therefore, development of the site would not represent sustainable development.

To conclude, I find there to be no material considerations, that would indicate that the appeal decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed. Mr [planning inspector] INSPECTOR